Charles James-Beyond Fashion

I have been to a few fashion exhibitions in the last couple of months but unfortunately not managed to write anything about them until today. I was lucky enough to be in New York  a month and a half ago and found myself, rather by chance, on the MET steps. Once there, I knew there was no way I was leaving without checking out the Charles James- Beyond fashion exhibit which had opened that very week at the MET.  

I ashamed to say I knew nothing about the ‘first american couturier’ until then but I’m glad that I took the opportunity to find out more. What a lot of people don't know about Charles James was that he was born in London to a English father and an American mother from Chicago, he even did a stint at Harrow. His first shop was in Chicago after which he moved to London and then Paris for a while. His most successful collection was shown in Paris in 1947 but he returned to America soon after and settled in New York in the 1950’s. 

The exhibition itself was an absolutely breathtaking array of one-off couture pieces and show stopping gowns. You could see how current designers had created gowns for celebrities to wear on the red carpet that were direct inspirations from his designs. For example, the oscar de la rent dress Sarah Jessica Parker wore at the MET gala and the Gucci dress that Blake lively wore at Cannes 2014 were both direct (almost) replicas of Charles’ own designs. What is fascinating about the era when he designed clothes is that more was always more which incidentally is my favourite fashion motto. I have never been very good at simple and minimalistic unless I’m dressing down for work or at home wanting to be comfortable. As much as I wish i could work the Phoebe Philo look, the truth is her clothes will never suit my curves. Luckily, Charles’ designs seemed tailor made for me-it was all about evening attire and formal wear. 

Two other things that must be mentioned before I stop droning on about how good the exhibition was; one is the tailoring of his dresses which will flatter women of any shape and size (size 0 enthusiasts take note, this is how most women want to be dressed) and secondly the use of colour. We are becoming so reliant on black that we sometimes forget how exciting colour can be and the Beyond Fashion exhibition reminds us of exactly that. So if you happen upon the steps of the MET before the 10th of August 2014 do go and see the exhibition- you wont be disappointed. 

Guy Bourdin- Story of a troubled but genius fashion photographer

I first came across Guy Bourdin's photography when I was preparing my portfolio for A'level art. I was attracted to his photography because he was a fashion photographer and my project was on fashion but more so because his photographs were so unique for his time. For those of you that are familiar with his work, you will I'm sure agree with me when I say that his images pushed the boundary of what would have been conventional at the time.

Bourdin was born in Paris in 1928 and sadly abandoned by his mother the year after. He was brought up by his father's parents and received his first photography training as a cadet in the French Air Force. He was an established photographer by the time his first fashion images were published in French Vogue in 1955. He went onto have a long and mutually fruitful relationship with the magazine which lasted for many years.

So what set Bourdin apart from his peers? I guess that depends on who you ask. If you speak to a fashion conservative they might say his photography defined everything that was perverse, shocking and disturbing. I suppose they maybe right. His photographs encompassed all that was misogynistic, erotic and sinister. However, if you asked a fan they may say those are the exact qualities that made him the best in his field and created his reputation as a revolutionary fashion photographer. I have to admit I am one of those fans. I am a fan of his more darker, shock inducing, surrealist photographs. I assure you the mood of his more sinister work does not in anyway reflect my own, I simply admire his work and find his images breathtaking. I was lucky enough to see his exhibition at the V&A in 2003; it took a very harassed friend and the lure of persian food to drag me away!

What do I find so mesmerising about his work? Take for example his habit of portraying women who appear dead in his images. It makes you think, it tells a story. It says yes these are beautiful images, the women are wearing beautiful clothes, jewellery and make-up but why do they appear to be dead? What is the story behind this image? It is this curiosity to know that makes you return to his photos over and over again; that and of course the glamour which can be found in abundance throughout his work. It also made me question what caused him to create the work that he did.

It could maybe be traced back to his relationship with women. It is thought that he never recovered from being abandoned by his mother and any women that he had a relationship with in his adult life were eventually trapped in both the relationship (mentally) and in his apartment (literally), not allowed to communicate with anyone in the outside world. Two of his lovers committed suicide, with one of them found hanging from the ceiling by his 13 year old son.

His wife Solange Geze died from what was thought to be an overdose. Did his troubled relationship with women define his relationship with photography? Possibly; he was well known for being very demanding on fashion shoots and was infamous for driving his models to distraction. Is my feminist self horrified that he treated women so abominably? Yes absolutely. Does that take away from his creative genius? No not at all. If at all possible it makes him even more beguiling and intriguing. Contrastingly, his friend Manolo Blahnik claims that Guy 'loved' and 'adored women'. He also apparently never thought of himself as a mysogynist but more as a 'poete damne'. I guess we will never know what exactly his relationship with the women in his life was and to what extent that affected/inspired his work.

He was never great at keeping a portfolio of his work thereby showing a disregard for fame and fortune. He was well known for not letting his pictures be used without context of a magazine,   he refused exhibitions and once turned down a handsome some of money as a reward from the french government. He was never interested in getting books published of his work. The first published book of his work came out after his death. Manolo Blahnik goes on to claim Bourdin to be so unique and brilliant that according to him no one can fill his shoes. I fear Blahnik maybe right; it maybe unlikely that there will be another photographer who has the same ability to shock and inspire quite the same way as Guy Bourdin.

I believe that he was so driven by his own demons and appetite for sexual perversion that it resulted in his being a photographic genius.  Whether that is true I guess I shall never find out. Bourdin once claimed that his photographs were 'just accidents', I so wish more of us were able to create 'accidents' like his.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Fashion in Politics

Fashionable Political Women- too much hype? 

Whilst reading a feature on Asma Assad in a certain glossy (said piece has now become quite infamous), I asked myself whether some women in politics get more attention in the media for their sartorial knowledge rather than their political presence. Should we really give someone more attention because they wear Lanvin like second skin rather than because they are one of the first people to promote women’s empowerment in Saudi Arabia (e.g. Princess Ameerah). Should we really care about Asma Assad’s new line of accessories when her husband is busy creating a genocide in his country? Does it really matter that Samantha Cameron can tell the difference between an Ellie Saab and an Erdem when her husband is announcing cuts for the public sector? Apparently so- which is why we have so many articles and blogs (like this one) dedicated solely to ‘what they wore’ rather than ‘what they/their other halves’ did. Here is a list of some women in politics that are considered to be in-vogue currently. Do you think we should pay attention to what these women wear? Let me know who you think should be included here by commenting. Enjoy! 

QUEEN RANIA,ASMA ASSAD and PRINCESS AMIRAH-  All these women have one common factor- no it is not that they are all middle eastern or that they are all always impeccably dressed (which they are), it is that they all have husbands who some would consider to be dictators. Their husbands have also been accused of falsely using their wives to promote a secular, fashionable and moderate view of their regimes/dynasties. This is probably less so for Princess Ameerah whose husband is not the ruling or future king of Saudi Arabia. However, her prominent presence in the Western media have caused conflict among the Saudi Royals with one of her husbands brothers threatening to ‘take action’ if she was not subdued by her husband and taught to behave like a ‘proper Saudi wife’. Here’s hoping that never happened!

Hina rabbani khar- Pakistan’s ex foreign minister- Known more for her multiple Hermes and Chanel bags then for her foreign policy. That is quite an achievement as Pakistan’s foreign policy is constantly in the press! She caused quite a stir in India when she made her first official visit causing many to call the indian press sexist. 

Carla Bruni- Ok so her husband is no longer the French president but when he was we heard more about Carla than we did about him. Some of her favourite designers include YSL, John Galliano and above all Christian Dior. This post would not be complete if I do not mentioned these two. Mrs Cameron is a self confessed fan of Erdem, Roksanda llincic Christopher Kane and Alessandra Rich whereas Mrs Obama prefers to showcase American designers such as Alexander Wang, Jason Wu (Canadian) and Thakoon.